VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:07:54 -0700, Daryl Hunt wrote:

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
news

snip

While you are at it tell us again about the FB-4 nuclear bombers of the
1960's.

LOL, you have already been blown out of the water on that one. Guess you
are just recycling your old lies. Ask Ed if he ever was on a Nuke loaded
Phantom.

Yes, let's ask Ed. From Google http://preview.tinyurl.com/2h5fw5 when Ed
wrote the following:

The 401st TFW out of Torrejon conducted most of the rotational support
for the Victor mission out of Incirlik, although over the years of the
cold war there were a lot of tactical aircraft that sat alert with
nukes. Torrejon F-4s were originally E-models, but the wing converted
to C's in '73 in a rearrangement of all the USAFE F-4s to standardize
E's in Germany, D's in England and the C wing in Spain. I sat Victor
in an F-4C, but never heard it referred to as an FB or BF.

He's already stated he has.

Yes, he's stated that he sat alert in an F-4C and never heard of it
referred to as an FB-4.

But, again, don't let facts get in the way of you recycling your lies.

He's recycling the very things you yourself have said.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

"Yeff" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:07:54 -0700, Daryl Hunt wrote:

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
news

snip

While you are at it tell us again about the FB-4 nuclear bombers of the
1960's.

LOL, you have already been blown out of the water on that one. Guess
you
are just recycling your old lies. Ask Ed if he ever was on a Nuke
loaded
Phantom.

Yes, let's ask Ed. From Google http://preview.tinyurl.com/2h5fw5 when
Ed
wrote the following:

The 401st TFW out of Torrejon conducted most of the rotational support
for the Victor mission out of Incirlik, although over the years of the
cold war there were a lot of tactical aircraft that sat alert with
nukes. Torrejon F-4s were originally E-models, but the wing converted
to C's in '73 in a rearrangement of all the USAFE F-4s to standardize
E's in Germany, D's in England and the C wing in Spain. I sat Victor
in an F-4C, but never heard it referred to as an FB or BF.

He's already stated he has.

Yes, he's stated that he sat alert in an F-4C and never heard of it
referred to as an FB-4.

But, again, don't let facts get in the way of you recycling your lies.

He's recycling the very things you yourself have said.

Yes he is. And he's trying to hide the fact he's just a low level troll.
Besides, I guess the Fighter/Bomber designation from MD says they haven't a
clue to the own AC usage is supposed to be.

I can see that you are coming to their aid since they are cornered once
again. I thought you had given up on that. Well, you just got demoted back
to the dismal 404thk00ks. Nice job. You are now wide open for any and all
criticism that comes their way. Guess you will never learn.

Daryl Hunt schrieb:
Besides, I guess the Fighter/Bomber designation from MD says they haven't a
clue to the own AC usage is supposed to be.

Just because the F-4 was a fighter-bomber doesn't mean it was ever
called "FB-4". The F-15 is a fighter-bomber as well, and it isn't called
"FB-15" either.

Andreas

"Andreas Parsch" wrote in message
...
Daryl Hunt schrieb:
Besides, I guess the Fighter/Bomber designation from MD says they
haven't a
clue to the own AC usage is supposed to be.

Just because the F-4 was a fighter-bomber doesn't mean it was ever
called "FB-4". The F-15 is a fighter-bomber as well, and it isn't called
"FB-15" either.

I already admitted to that about 7 years ago. But you are playing into the
404thk00ks game here. No, it wasn't but it easily could have been since all
others before it carried that designation. But when you put a B up there
certain agreements with the Soviets became in question. The FB was dropped
and never returned even though you can nuke load out many fighters today and
use them for ground attack as well. You will note that the FA designation
is pretty well gone as well.

Daryl Hunt wrote:

"Andreas Parsch" wrote in message
...

Just because the F-4 was a fighter-bomber doesn't mean it was ever
called "FB-4". The F-15 is a fighter-bomber as well, and it isn't called
"FB-15" either.

I already admitted to that about 7 years ago. But you are playing into
the 404thk00ks game here. No, it wasn't but it easily could have been
since all others before it carried that designation.

Huh? "All others before it carried that designation." - what kind of
bull**** is _that_!? There was exactly _one_ USAF aircraft which was ever
designated "FB", and that was the FB-111!

But when you put a B up there certain agreements with the Soviets became
in question. The FB was dropped and never returned [...]

Many FB-111As were indeed redesignated as F-111G late in their service
career. But this absolutely nothing to do with the fact, that there were
never any _other_ "FB"-designated aircraft in the USAF.


Andreas

"Andreas Parsch" wrote in message
...
Daryl Hunt wrote:

"Andreas Parsch" wrote in message
...

Just because the F-4 was a fighter-bomber doesn't mean it was ever
called "FB-4". The F-15 is a fighter-bomber as well, and it isn't
called
"FB-15" either.

I already admitted to that about 7 years ago. But you are playing into
the 404thk00ks game here. No, it wasn't but it easily could have been
since all others before it carried that designation.

Huh? "All others before it carried that designation." - what kind of
bull**** is _that_!? There was exactly _one_ USAF aircraft which was ever
designated "FB", and that was the FB-111!

But when you put a B up there certain agreements with the Soviets became
in question. The FB was dropped and never returned [...]

Many FB-111As were indeed redesignated as F-111G late in their service
career. But this absolutely nothing to do with the fact, that there were
never any _other_ "FB"-designated aircraft in the USAF.

There were many more than that but I can see you really won't believe it so
why would I bother.

And thank you for playing "Bowling for Breadloaves" you can pick up your
parting gifts at the door.

Daryl Hunt wrote:

There were many more than that but I can see you really won't believe it
so why would I bother.

Yes, don't bother. Given the number of original USAF and DOD designation
records I have seen, none of which supports your "FB-4" BS, I will indeed
not believe you.


And thank you for playing "Bowling for Breadloaves" you can pick up your
parting gifts at the door.

Nice try, but if you want to win the r.a.m. "Crackpot of the Month" contest
against Mr. Arndt, you'll have to do better :-)!

Andreas

In article ,
mumbled

"Andreas Parsch" wrote in message
...
Daryl Hunt schrieb:
Besides, I guess the Fighter/Bomber designation from MD says they
haven't a
clue to the own AC usage is supposed to be.

Just because the F-4 was a fighter-bomber doesn't mean it was ever
called "FB-4". The F-15 is a fighter-bomber as well, and it isn't called
"FB-15" either.

I already admitted to that about 7 years ago. But you are playing into the
404thk00ks game here. No, it wasn't but it easily could have been since all
others before it carried that designation. But when you put a B up there
certain agreements with the Soviets became in question. The FB was dropped

Funny but in a previous post you claimed the USAF never used the FB
designation.
Of course in other posts you claimed they had.

and never returned even though you can nuke load out many fighters today and
use them for ground attack as well. You will note that the FA designation
is pretty well gone as well.

That would be news to the USN and the USMC F/A-18 drivers


--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article ,
mumbled

"Andreas Parsch" wrote in message
...
Daryl Hunt schrieb:
Besides, I guess the Fighter/Bomber designation from MD says they
haven't a
clue to the own AC usage is supposed to be.

Just because the F-4 was a fighter-bomber doesn't mean it was ever
called "FB-4". The F-15 is a fighter-bomber as well, and it isn't
called
"FB-15" either.

I already admitted to that about 7 years ago. But you are playing into
the
404thk00ks game here. No, it wasn't but it easily could have been since
all
others before it carried that designation. But when you put a B up
there
certain agreements with the Soviets became in question. The FB was
dropped

Funny but in a previous post you claimed the USAF never used the FB
designation.
Of course in other posts you claimed they had.

Wrong. You are confusing what you drivel with what I report. Now, go back
to playing with leturd and wrecking yet another Military NG that you
404thk00ks are so infamous in doing.



and never returned even though you can nuke load out many fighters today
and
use them for ground attack as well. You will note that the FA
designation
is pretty well gone as well.

That would be news to the USN and the USMC F/A-18 drivers

No news here. They know the days of the FA is limited to never return.
That will be the last AC that will carry that designation. Much like the FB
was phased out for exactly the same reason. The new Superhornet is classed
as a Multirole Fighter now that the F-14 is gone. I won't bother explaining
to you the system since you don't have the capacity to understand it anyway.

I can see it now, 40 years in the future, someone will say that there used
to be FA Aircraft and some idiot like you will go into the same routine that
you are now over the FB.

In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article ,
mumbled

"Andreas Parsch" wrote in message
...
Daryl Hunt schrieb:
Besides, I guess the Fighter/Bomber designation from MD says they
haven't a
clue to the own AC usage is supposed to be.

Just because the F-4 was a fighter-bomber doesn't mean it was ever
called "FB-4". The F-15 is a fighter-bomber as well, and it isn't
called
"FB-15" either.

I already admitted to that about 7 years ago. But you are playing into
the
404thk00ks game here. No, it wasn't but it easily could have been since
all
others before it carried that designation. But when you put a B up
there
certain agreements with the Soviets became in question. The FB was
dropped

Funny but in a previous post you claimed the USAF never used the FB
designation.
Of course in other posts you claimed they had.

Wrong. You are confusing what you drivel with what I report. Now, go back
to playing with leturd and wrecking yet another Military NG that you
404thk00ks are so infamous in doing.



and never returned even though you can nuke load out many fighters today
and
use them for ground attack as well. You will note that the FA
designation
is pretty well gone as well.

That would be news to the USN and the USMC F/A-18 drivers

No news here. They know the days of the FA is limited to never return.
That will be the last AC that will carry that designation. Much like the FB
was phased out for exactly the same reason. The new Superhornet is classed
as a Multirole Fighter now that the F-14 is gone. I won't bother explaining
to you the system since you don't have the capacity to understand it anyway.

Funny but the F/A-18 was considered multi role from the very beginning.

And I didn't know you worked at DOD and made decisions on what aircraft
are designated. For all we know they may call the USMC version of the
JSF F/A....


I can see it now, 40 years in the future, someone will say that there used
to be FA Aircraft and some idiot like you will go into the same routine that
you are now over the FB.

The tiny differance is that 40 years from now it will be easy to find
any number of sources that will show the F/A was used as an aricraft
designation by both the USN and the USMC.
In this case you can't provide one single shred of proof the F-4 was
ever designated the "FB-4" by any service OR its maker.


--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."